Flexible Working. Reduce lunch break...

Stylehutz

Employers need to move in the 21st century

marliepanda

Stylehutz wrote: »

Employers need to move in the 21st century

Yup offices only need to be manned til 4.30 in the 21st century, it's true!

Stylehutz

marliepanda wrote: »

Yup offices only need to be manned til 4.30 in the 21st century, it's true!

But they dont need all their staff from 4.30 which is obvious. Think you will Find majority of offiice type employers offer flexible working for their employees these days

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

Stylehutz wrote: »

But they dont need all their staff from 4.30 which is obvious. Think you will Find majority of offiice type employers offer flexible working for their employees these days

Nobody, literally nobody, at all, will choose to be there from 9 until 5 with an hour for lunch if there's the option of 9 until 4:30 with half an hour for lunch. Who on earth would choose that? They can't offer that option.

There has to be some downside for doing this. Either start at 8:30, or less money. They've chosen to go with less money.

lush_walrus

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

How is it petty? They want people in the office from 9 until 5.

If they let her be in the office from 9 until 4:30 with no loss of pay, everyone will want to do the same.

They'd be stupid to agree.

It's petty because HR have agreed to her reducing her day to finish at 4.30 but want her to take an hours lunch break. So no they do not want people in the office from 9 to 5. That is not the issue. They agree to finish at 4.30 but not to the method. 30 mins lunch break is sufficient by law, it is this persons desire for that not to be reduced.

And no not everyone in my experience does ask for flexible hours just because someone else has. So that is not an adequate reason.

lush_walrus

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

Nobody, literally nobody, at all, will choose to be there from 9 until 5 with an hour for lunch if there's the option of 9 until 4:30 with half an hour for lunch. Who on earth would choose that? They can't offer that option.

There has to be some downside for doing this. Either start at 8:30, or less money. They've chosen to go with less money.

Lots you would be surprised. We offer our staff flexible hours, some start early some start late, some take 30 mins lunch others take an hour. There is no pattern as everyone has different wants from a day at work, not everyone is dying to reduce their day. Some of my staff like an hour so they can go out for food, meet people, relax in the sun, do chores you name it. Of our staff I would say 20 percent have opted for a reduced lunch even though it is offered.

Same with working at home, we allow everyone the opportunity to work at home for one day a week. Most do not. Progressive offices do allow staff flexibility, if you want to retain motivated, tallented staff it's now part of the package offered.

Not everyone is the same. I am sure if you work in a factory in the middle of no where it may be different, but then those roles are to get an order completed not to man an office.

marliepanda

the office does not have to agree.

The op needs to decide what is important. Picking up her daughter or a few extra quid a week.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

lush_walrus wrote: »

Lots you would be surprised. We offer our staff flexible hours, some start early some start late, some take 30 mins lunch others take an hour. There is no pattern as everyone has different wants from a day at work, not everyone is dying to reduce their day. Some of my staff like an hour so they can go out for food, meet people, relax in the sun, do chores you name it. Of our staff I would say 20 percent have opted for a reduced lunch even though it is offered.

Same with working at home, we allow everyone the opportunity to work at home for one day a week. Most do not. Progressive offices do allow staff flexibility, if you want to retain motivated, tallented staff it's now part of the package offered.

Not everyone is the same. I am sure if you work in a factory in the middle of no where it may be different, but then those roles are to get an order completed not to man an office.

Which is all very well, but this office doesn't offer flexible hours. We don't know what their reasons are. You can assume they are a bunch of incompetents destroying their own business, or you can assume they have thought about it and have good reasons. It doesn't matter. They can't make an exception for one person without !!!!ing everybody else off.

jobbingmusician

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

Nobody, literally nobody, at all, will choose to be there from 9 until 5 with an hour for lunch if there's the option of 9 until 4:30 with half an hour for lunch. Who on earth would choose that? They can't offer that option.

There has to be some downside for doing this. Either start at 8:30, or less money. They've chosen to go with less money.

I don't think they have. Read my post #40. The OP said they had been allowed to start later. I queried this, asking if they meant 'start earlier', and the OP said 'ooops, my mistake'. I conclude from this that they have been allowed to start earlier and are now working 8.30-4.30.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

jobbingmusician wrote: »

I don't think they have. Read my post #40. The OP said they had been allowed to start later. I queried this, asking if they meant 'start earlier', and the OP said 'ooops, my mistake'. I conclude from this that they have been allowed to start earlier and are now working 8.30-4.30.

I know, I read your post, I disagree. I would imagine they meant "finish earlier", which is what they said earlier and said that they were "clarifying". Giving accurate information is not the OP's strength.

It's immaterial anyway. Either way, they are giving something in order to get something.